# Biofuels that don't use foodland to produce



## Guest (Dec 9, 2007)

Does this sound like a viable alternative for production?
http://www.industriesforafrica.com/

Africa has gazillions of acres suitable for growing biofuel crops that aren't suitable for growing food crops.


----------



## Picea Pungens (Nov 19, 2007)

Please don't take this as criticisms toward you ladycat, but what production? That site doesn't show a single acre of land in Africa under cultivation for biofuel purposes. Furthermore, there's no locations, offices or person specifically identified. The only contact information is an email addy for someone named Andrea (and it doesnt' even provide a last name) . Frankly, I'm suspect. It doesn't look that "foundation" has any actual project in operation (other than a website with some nice sounding ideas asking for donations). 

The site states, "The Drylands of Africa offer a clean, green solution" Really? with what crop? Brazil, the worlds' most successfull enthanol producer, uses sugar cane that requires over 24" of rain a year to grow! The Drylands of Africa don't get anywhere near that. Sugar Cane also works because it is one of the most photosynthic efficient plants. So what plants are they planning on using?

Your question about the use of non-foodlands is a valid one ladycat. In 1925 the great American Henry Ford stated, "The fuel of the future is going to come from apples, weeds, sawdust â almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter". So any vegetable matter can be used for biofuels but the questions become 1) what is the source of the vegetable material?and 2) is it available in large enough quanities?

In terms of actual operations, one of the more progressive companies is Range Fuels headquarted out of Broomfield, CO. They're all about cellulosic ethanol, check out their site:

http://www.rangefuels.com/waste_to_wheels_the_cellulosic_revolutio


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2007)

Picea Pungens said:


> Please don't take this as criticisms toward you ladycat,


 Not taking anything as criticism, just asking for opinions.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

If the land isn't suitable for food crops, then I would suspect that it isn't suitable for fuel crops either. Even if it were, the political instability of that region would make fuel production there unstable and unreliable.


----------



## donsgal (May 2, 2005)

The site sounds like they are pretty impressed with themselves but it is all potatoes and no meat.

They just ramble on and on with rhetoric instead of actually SAYING anything. They need to find someone who knows how to put a website together and they need to actually DO something and not just talk about it. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about most of the time.

donsgal


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Africa is a lose/lose case... 

What isn't desert or unproductive now, will be... the human population is beyond the carrying capacity of the land, in most regions. The former breadbasket of the continent is ruled by a nonrepentent Marxist, intent (like most of the other rulers) on enriching only himself and his cronies. Zimbabweans now are needing food imported, unfortunately they have no means of paying, except for outside donations.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Not at all. Africa isn't suited to grow oil-seed crops on any but a tiny fraction of the continent.

If you can't grow food crops (corn, soybean, wheat covers many soil & climatic types, grass to feed beef covers real waste land)) then what _could_ you possibly grow to make bio-fuel from???????

Just another fraud.

--->Paul


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.practicalenvironmentalis...-trash-heaps-and-just-about-anywhere-else.htm

Maybe something like this? There have to be some desert plants that would be suitable. But then, who wants to invest in Africa?


----------



## Michael Kawalek (Jun 21, 2007)

Yes, I agree with Donsgal and the Blue Spruce guy that this site has no substance and is just talk. Maybe it's just a ploy to pull in some donation money?

On the other hand, I am a staunch support of biofuels, which I hope will be our salvation. Ideally, the crop would produce both oil feestock, and some edible byproduct. Soybeans is popular in the US because the the byproduct is protein rich meal that can be used for either animal feed or human based food products like Tofu. Biodieself from soybeans will NOT result in people going hungry for fuel. It will increase the food supply!

But, there is a lot of land that is either too steep, rocky, or infertile to support regular row cropping, so maybe permiculture is the answer. Olives produce about 3X the amount of oil/acre, and Chinese tallow tree almost 10X. Olives would be very much at home on a steep rocky southern hillside where little else would grow. That's an example of utilizing land unsuited for other purposes.

There's a lot of flexibility here. Most of the heartland of the US can be used to grow soybeans, marshly wetlands near the coasts could be used for algae production, steep hills for permaculture, and the deserts for solar. If Americans have the will, and we get rid of polititions who think their jobs are to enrich the oil companies, we can do it.

As for Africa, their people make their own problems. When you have 6 or 8 or 10 or 12 children per wife (sometimes more than one) you quickly breed your way out of house and home. The horrible genocide that occured in Rwanda was simply because it was the most densely populated place on earth at the time.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Checked the site briefly. Doesn't say much, does it. I'm reasonbly sure they're talking about jatropha.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Why go to Africa when Haiti is right at our doorstep? At one time it was an extremely production country largely based on sugar cane. However, due to corrupt leadership and unchecked population growth it is now essentially a barren landscape. Since conditions are similar to Africa, same solutions MIGHT work there also.


----------



## WisJim (Jan 14, 2004)

To grow any kind of crops for fuel is going to take some method to fertilize the soil to maintain fertility to maintain crop production. I think that if the oil-producing algae becomes feasible, that using sewage to feed algae to produce oil might make sense. That would help towards a partial solution of 2 problems, human waste in our water, and the "need" for an alternative fuel.
The deserts near large cities in the southwest come to mind as potential areas to try this--close to a source of nutrients (sewage) and close to a good sun source (deserts).


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

A Univ of MN professor completed a study of producing cellulosic ethanol by using a mixture of native prairie grasses. It returns 8 units of energy for every unit put into it. Corn ethanol returns 1.25 units.

It also sequesters 1-2 ton of CO2 per acre per year into the soil.

There is a long list of environmental benefits like clean water runoff, soil restoration, wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge, biodiversity stabilization, it can be grown on erodable land........ . But, probably the most promising positive is that it is more profitable than row crop ethanol or biodisel or even monoculture switchgrass because the inputs are so low. What's the point of raising corn for ethanol when it costs 20x to sell for 20.5x and raising prairie grass for ethanol costs 5x and sells for 7x.

It's only established once instead of yearly plantings, only minimal fertilization is needed because harvest takes place after the plant moves most of the nutrients into the root system for the winter, doesn't require irrigation, no herbicides or pesticides are needed, harvesting methods are already established.

We need to come up with cost effective ways of breaking the beta bond in cellulose but research money isn't happening fast enough. We can however, continue to give tax breaks to oil companies.

It can even be pelletized for use as heating fuel in pellet burning stoves and has the same btu output per pound as wood.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

fishhead said:


> A Univ of MN professor completed a study of producing cellulosic ethanol by using a mixture of native prairie grasses. It returns 8 units of energy for every unit put into it. Corn ethanol returns 1.25 units.
> 
> It also sequesters 1-2 ton of CO2 per acre per year into the soil.
> 
> ...


I've often watched cotton farmers mowing down the stalks after harvesting the cotton, and wondered why the cellulose from the stalks couldn't be used for fuel. The same goes for other crops. We have an abundant supply of fuel all around us, we just need to figure out how to make it work.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Putting cotton or corn stalks back into the soil is important for future production because it puts organic matter back. That's important for soil structure and soil magnetic charge for holding nutrients.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The biggest drawback to trying to produce fuel from cellulose with current technology is it take too much of it.

You cant transport enough of it to keep the factories going without burning more fuel than it produces


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The biggest drawback to trying to produce fuel from cellulose with current technology is it take too much of it.
> 
> You cant transport enough of it to keep the factories going without burning more fuel than it produces


Then the key is to build small ethanol plants throughout the countryside close to the feedstock. That puts more money in the local economies too.

A similar dispersed approach has been proposed for wind energy. That also has the benefit of not having to build huge transmission lines because it can use existing infrastructure.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Yes, it does seem like the chicken vs egg situation. TN is pushing switchgrass. However, growers won't produce it without a proven market/plant. Producers reluctant to build a plant with a proven local supply.

One BIG reason for soybeans and corn. Many, many local elevators to take it to and you can get a lot of volume/weight in one shipment.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Mind you, I'm all for the new & alternative ways to get bio-fuel. It's just always a chicken & egg thing.

The prairie grasses in Minnesota is a fine idea, but it won't work _that_ well, it's a little disappointing to see folks tearing apart what we have now, for something that will be even more difficult to make go. Native prairie grasses are low volume, that will take 'huge' acres; it will take fertilizer once we start removing material; harvesting the stems will remove much of the cover/ habitat; and so on. It can work, & I'm all for it, but - it will not be all that great. Small plants (industry) is less efficient than large plants, so making 10 small ethanol distilleries will cost much more than making 2 large ones, and use more energy throught their life. Perhaps smaller plants will owrk better, but there is a trade off.

Baby steps, it all starts with baby steps. Get the basic fuel working and folks used to it, then get the other production ideas ironed out & get them working. It takes time, can't snap our fingers & have a perfect world. 

Corn cobs are currently popular, if you can put your hands on The Farmer (a Minnesota monthly) or look it up on the web, current issue has articles on ways to harvest corn cobs while harvesting corn with a combine, they are trying that in the upper midwest as a source for celulose.

Will be very interesting to see what works out, I'll bet switchgrass will get going in the south, bet wood waste & rice waste will also get it's little toe-holds, perhaps cobs or cornstalks or prairie grass here in the mid-west.

And I think even corn will continue to provide ethanol for some time to come.

--->Paul


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Michael Kawalek said:


> On the other hand, I am a staunch support of biofuels, which I hope will be our salvation. Ideally, the crop would produce both oil feedstock, and some edible byproduct. marshy wetlands near the coasts could be used for algae production, .


Yup,need to think outside the box and embrace innovation.I believe its what we dont even have yet will be the energy producers of tomorrow.Yup,the 'evil' line of 'technology to the rescue',so spurned upon here,which I believe in completely.To think otherwise and we would still be cave dwellers.


Algae may be a large part in the future of liquid fuels.
======================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture

Microalgae have much faster growth-rates than terrestrial crops. The oil yield per unit area of algae is estimated to be 5,000 to 20,000 gallons per acre, per year (4.6 to 18.4 l/m2 per year); this is 7 to 30 times greater than the next best crop, Chinese tallow (699 gallons)


Research into algae for the mass-production of oil is mainly focused on microalgae; organisms capable of photosynthesis that are less than 2 mm in diameter, including the diatoms and cyanobacteria; as opposed to macroalgae, e.g. seaweed. This preference towards microalgae is due largely to its less complex structure, fast growth rate, and high oil content (for some species). Some commercial interests into large scale algal-cultivation systems are looking to tie in to existing infrastructures, such as coal power plants or sewage treatment facilities. This approach not only provides the raw materials for the system, such as CO2 and nutrients; but it changes those wastes into resources.

In November 8, 2006, an entity called "Green Star Products" announced that it has signed an agreement with "De Beers Fuel Limited" of South Africa to build 90 biodiesel reactors with algae as raw material. Each of the biodiesel reactors will be capable of producing 10 million gallons of biodiesel each year for a total production capacity of 900,000,000 gallons per year when operating at full capacity, which is 4 times greater than the entire U.S. output in 2006. Also, GreenFuel Technologies Corporation has delivered a bioreactor to De Beers Fuel. Doubts have been expressed about Green Star's expertise in biodiesel technology. [20] Green Star's president did however answer questions in an online interview with WallSt.net where he claimed that the South African biodiesel production has exceeded the original expectations.[21]

The corporations Chevron, Honeywell, and Boeing are starting algae businesses. According to Boeing's technology leader for energy and emissions, Dave Daggett, 'In the past two years, we have changed from algae skeptics to proponents'. [22] The development challenge is to reduce the cost of producing algae oil in commercial volumes, i.e. billions of gallons.


----------

